ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Thus, for most of Christian history, Israel and the Church grew completely apart one from another, more often than not in a state of enmity, with Christians believing that God had revoked his election of the Jews and that the Church was now the "New" and "True Israel."

Does this claim have any Scriptural validity? Derek Prince, in his little book The Destiny of Israel and the Church notes that of 77 instances of the words Israel or Israelite in the New Testament, not once is Israel used as a synonym for the Church. Moreover, the expression "New Israel" is not found in the Scriptures. In only two instances is "Israel" used in a special way. The first is Romans 9:6-8:

It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, and not all of Abraham's children are his true descendants; but "It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you." This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants.

A close examination of the text reveals that Paul is restricting here the use of Israel to those who believe in the promises. In other words, it is not enough to be a physical descendant of Abraham to be a true Israelite. At the same time, he is beginning to imply that others may be included in the promise made to Israel, subsequently quoting Hosea:

Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call beloved." "And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,' there they shall be called children of the living God. (Rom. 9:25-26)

Though others who were previously estranged from God will also become His people, there is no hint here of a Gentile Church outright replacing Israel. This is made even plainer by Paul's language at the beginning of the same chapter, where he still calls Israelites those who have rejected the Messiah:

For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. (Rom. 9:3-5)

The other passage where "Israel" is used in a special way is Galatians 6:16, which the RSV translates as follows: "Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God." Read as such, the text seems to imply that all who "walk by the rule" - that is, all Christians - are the Israel of God. The problem with this interpretation is that the RSV omits the Greek word kai (and) in the original text. A more accurate translation of the passage (such as rendered in the NAB and NJB) would be: "Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, and upon the Israel of God." Read in this way, the text would rather imply that the "Israel of God" is not constituted of all Christians but of the remnant of natural Israel who have accepted God's promises in Christ. The eternal election of Israel is in any case reaffirmed in Romans chapter 11:

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew...a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved...As regards the gospel they are enemies of God for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. (Rom. 11:1, 25-29)

It is precisely through the unbelief of Israel that salvation has come to the Gentiles. Yet God has not rejected them; on the contrary, their unbelief is only temporary, and their coming to faith will be even a greater blessing to the world:

Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! ...For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead! (Rom. 11:12,15)

Next comes Paul's remarkable warning to the Gentile Church in the illustration of the olive tree (Rom. 11:17-24). Though natural branches (Jews) were broken off the tree of Israel because of their unbelief, and wild branches (Gentiles) were grafted in their place, he warns the Gentiles not to become proud, lest they too be cut off. Further, God has the power to graft the natural branches of Israel back into their own olive tree. In light of the Church's treatment of the Jews that we have seen, Paul's warning went unheeded. Elias Friedman writes: "If the truth be told, St. Paul had done more than give a warning; he had prophesied."[28] The arrogance of the Christian nations towards the Jewish people throughout the ages shows to what extent they had forgotten and despised the root that was meant to support them.

Some attempt to justify replacement theology and the abolishment of the role of the Jewish people in the plan of salvation by quoting Paul in Galatians 3:27-28: "As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." Yet if this passage were literally meant to abolish the distinction between Jew and Greek, it would also have to abolish the difference between man and woman. Though there is indeed no difference in regards to salvation, the fact that the universal vocation of Jew and Greek, man and woman are the same does not exclude the fact that their role in the plan of salvation may be different.

Israel and the Church: An Evaluation

Before we begin to look at the present state of Jewish-Christian relations and consider what the future may hold, it will be helpful to briefly recapitulate what we have covered so far on the relationship of Israel with the Church.

Israel rejected her own Messiah. Though Jesus so intently desired to gather her children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, they were not willing to come to him. Without excusing the Jews' unbelief, it is nonetheless undeniable that the Church's attitude of contempt towards her own spiritual roots only widened the gap between them and made reconciliation next to impossible. Yet it is not enough to condemn gross anti-Semitism. It must be admitted that the theology developed by the Church Fathers, radically opposed to the spirit of Paul and of the New Testament, became the very seed for the teaching of contempt, even though it never became authoritative Church teaching. This theology also became the justification for the regime of assimilation of Jewish converts, as seen above in the professions of faith required from Jews at baptism. Because it was assumed that God had rejected Israel, there was no more possible role for post-Christic Judaism in the plan of salvation. A Jew who became a Christian ceased to be a Jew, and he therefore had to completely renounce his religious heritage to follow Christ.

The founder of the Association of Hebrew Catholics, Elias Friedman, argues that this policy of assimilation remains to this day the chief obstacle to the conversion of the Jews:

At present, the admission of the Jewish convert to the Church is governed by a regime of assimilation, which systematically ignores the specific elements of his identity (...). The ultimate effect of the regime is to alienate the convert from his people of origin and prepare the way for the total absorption of his descendants into the Gentile community. Between themselves, converts may have a past in common, but they have no present and no future in common. Whatever be the sentiments, virtues or attainments of the individual convert, he has no way of transmitting his historical identity, as an Israelite, to his descendants. These, in consequence, cease eventually to be Israelites, as daily experience shows to be the case. The effects of the regime of assimilation on the convert's fellow Israelites are no less destructive. Quite apart from the justifiable criticism that the convert has betrayed his people, they perceive the regime of assimilation as an expression of Gentile contempt for Jewish identity and a real menace to their historical survival - for if all Jews were to be converted, only to be assimilated, the Jewish People would cease to exist: hence, their total opposition to the Christian Mission. The regime of assimilation has thus become the major obstacle to the admission of Jews to the Faith.[29]

The survival and distinctiveness of the Jewish people is a living testimony of God's promise to guard and preserve the seed of Israel until the end of times, as prophesied by Jeremiah:

Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar- the LORD of hosts is his name: If this fixed order were ever to cease from my presence, says the LORD, then also the offspring of Israel would cease to be a nation before me forever. Thus says the LORD: If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be explored, then I will reject all the offspring of Israel because of all they have done, says the LORD. (Jer. 31:35-37)

By adopting the regime of assimilation, the Church worked directly against these words. The conversion of the Jews under these circumstances would have meant their assimilation into Gentile Christianity and the end of the natural seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The fruit of the theology of substitution has thus not only been Christian anti-Semitism but also the guaranteed failure of the Church's mission to the Jews.

Following this grim diagnosis, it is with some relief that we arrive at Vatican II and welcome the significant changes that the Council brought to the field of Jewish-Christian relations.

Go to Part II: Israel and the Church Today

Return to articles on Israel and the Church (index)

[28] Friedman, p. 109.

[29] Manifesto of the AHC, http://hebrewcatholic.org/AboutheAHC/originalmanifest.htm